CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or includes confirmation steps. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks critical context like behavioral traits, parameter details, and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't compensate for other gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the required 'message_def_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide any additional context beyond what the schema shows (e.g., format of IDs, default behavior for tenant_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value over the bare schema, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a message definition by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., cdp_delete_audience_def, cdp_delete_campaign), which all follow the same 'Delete [resource] by ID' pattern.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the message definition ID), what happens after deletion, or if there are any restrictions (e.g., cannot delete if in use). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.